UK ISP's censor Wikipedia.

[JAStewart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

 

In 1976, The Scorpions cause huge controversy by releasing an album called "Virgin Killer" cover. It depicting a young girl posed naked with only a key area covered by the appearance of cracked glass. Despite the controversy, this album and artwork continue to be on sale today from amazon and CD shops.

 

This has drawn huge debate about the whole issue. Personally I think that banning it was pretty stupid because a few friends I've spoken to said that they had never heard of the album cover until they heard it was banned and have gone looking for the album artwork, which they found with ease. The very fact that it is on CD covers which one can buy at a shop means that blocking it from wikipedia is a bit silly. After all, wikipedia is the website that had pictures of, of all things, a pearl necklace (wikipedia it, but you've been warned).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_censored#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

 

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

 

A simple google image search for "Virgin Killer" will show you what all the fuss is about. I was personally not offended by the cover.

[DamnSaxon]

There can hardly be a better way of drawing everybody's attention to something than a public announcement that ir's banned. I have no interest in the band, but when I heard this story I went straight to Wikipedia (through Virgin Media, who are supposed to be banning it ) and looked at it - as JAS says, not particularly offensive, if perhaps not in the best possible taste. Apparently the girl in the picture (now an adult) has no problems with it, either. It's a bit reminiscent of the hoohah over the Schoolkids edition of Oz magazine all those years ago.

 

This sort of thing is (a) spreading and ( worrying. As, I'm sure, the Aussie convicted of having images of the Simpsons having sex would agree. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/).

[Sudden Stop]

...not particularly offensive, if perhaps not in the best possible taste.

 

The lead guitarist doesn't seem too think of highly of it-

 

Looking at that picture today makes me cringe. It was done in the worst possible taste. Back then I was too immature to see that. Shame on me — I should have done everything in my power to stop it.

 

Hindsight eh?

 

As for the banning of it, surely that horse bolted 30 odd years ago? Taking measures against it's reproduction now seems counter productive in the extreme! Having been the public domain for so long, that image will be widely spread and uncontrollable but now people are going to go looking for it to:

 

a)see what the fuss is about.

 

or

 

b)well, you know why.

[JAStewart]

I have a feeling this is going to become victim to the Streisand effect which would be rather hilarious.

[JAStewart]

Good to see its been unblocked.